You need to read all the policies before making such statements. For example that explains the /32 in LACNIC. RIRs can be considered, and in fact they are, critical infrastructures, and in some regions, then they get a /32, and while you can't warrantee that a /48 will be filtered, I agree that a /32 is the right size for any critical infrastructure. Regards, Jordi

De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Organización: Unfix Responder a: <jeroen@unfix.org> Fecha: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:18:25 +0100 Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <ppml@arin.net>, RIPE Address Policy <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, "IPv6 in Africa <afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net>" <afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net>, APNIC IPv6 <global-v6@lists.apnic.net>, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>, <aalain@trstech.net> Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

...

Jeroen,

This is just ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is that /32's are getting wasted and will never be used. What is also ridiculous is that RIR policies are trying to avoid end-sites getting /48's in some places who need it to 'control routingtable entries' but then this shows up as a full /32 that never will be used.

Now *THAT* is what is ridiculous.

I have no problem at all with an organization receiving a justified /48, but a /32 for an organisation that will never ever use more than a /40 is ridiculous.

...

All the RIRs have their own /32 for their internal usage.

APNIC has one indeed: 2001:dc0::/32 but the rest doesn't. ARIN has a 2001:500::/48 which is more correct, they won't need much more. Where exactly is the one for RIPE, ARIN and LACNIC? See that is not !ALL!

RIPE even went so far to use 2 /48's (SURFNET+BIT) to avoid coming into the mess of being preferential to themselves.

Also, since when is a RIR special in anyway? Also, since when do those networks justify the need of 65536 /48's?

The point is not about AFRINIC, it is about wasting address space without justification.

Alain Patrick AINA wrote:

...

This does not meet the requirements above. So you won't get it.

It fully does, how else did AFRINIC assign a /32 to themselves?

Nick Hilliard wrote:

...

Frankly, I fail to see the problem here. IMO, bona-fide LIRs should be entitled to an ipv6 allocation under these terms at least in the RIPE region.

I agree that when an organization can justify (using HD ratios etc) the need for address space that they will fully be able to get that address space without any issues. But is AFRINIC (10-50 people) able to justify a /32 based on that?

Greets, Jeroen

********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Hi, At the moment I believe that any LIR should be able to get an IPv6 prefix. Arguing that they don't need it because of address space only implies that the minimum assignment size policy, which is a /32, needs adjustment (reduce it to /64 for example). As long as each entity only have a single prefix, the dfz should be somewhat optimal. Cheers, J -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: 22. juni 2007 17:28 To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: RIPE Address Policy; ppml@arin.net; APNIC IPv6; IPv6 in Africa <afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

You need to read all the policies before making such statements. For example that explains the /32 in LACNIC.

A 10-50 people organization that is not an ISP, doesn't do hosting, only has 3 offices, get a /32, which is good for 65536 /48's, please explain me how that is 'good justification' ?

RIRs can be considered, and in fact they are, critical infrastructures, and in some regions, then they get a /32, and while you can't warrantee that a /48 will be filtered, I agree that a /32 is the right size for any critical infrastructure.

RIR's provide "Address Space" not a "routing guarantee". ARIN has a micro-allocation policies for "critical infrastructure", these are of size /48. This is for The IX "critical infrastructure" policies also only provide a /48. Filtering is something that is happening at the ISP's, not at the RIR. It is nothing that the RIR can do about, and it is also nothing that the RIR would have to worry about. According to your analogy, anybody should be getting IPv4 /24 or IPv6 /32's simply because they have 1 box somewhere and they are afraid of being filtered. That is not how justification of address space works. If it does work that way today, then it definitely has to be changed ASAP. Greets, Jeroen

[cc: list slightly trimmed] Randy Bush wrote:

...

As long as each entity only have a single prefix, the dfz should be somewhat optimal.

great idea! was one of the rationales for A, B, and C. oops.

Now Randy, a young-un like you mightn't remember back that far, but I seem to remember from the time that the primary motivation for ditching classful addressing was due to number depletion, an issue that we don't have in ipv6, and are unlikely to see in the medium to long term. Besides, ipv6 doesn't implement classful addressing; it simply allows LIRs and PI end-users a sufficiently large amount of address space that additional allocations/assignments shouldn't be necessary to even remotely the same extent as in ipv4. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie

On Jun 22, 2007, at 11:17 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

RIRs can be considered, and in fact they are, critical infrastructures,

Why? Rgds, -drc

we all think we're critical, john. the original point was root servers, as their ip addresses are hard coded in jillions of systems around the solar system. from there, it has been the typical slippery slope. now folk think their grandma is critically ill and needs a /32. entropic social effect. when design is by committee, eventually everything turns into crap. randy

Am going to assume that was a rhetorical question;) I believe that the services needed to allocate address space are indeed critical to continue expansion of the networks and to enabling ISPs to get their addresses. Some of the other services operated by RIR's include DNS for reverse delegation etc. are also in a similar category. So in as far as any of the registration systems and some of the related infrastructure are "Critical" then I think IANA and the RIRs are in a similar boat. Of course if any of our networks disappeared for a few hours life would go on.. In fact I remember a situation in the mid 90's when we had such a fun day at the RIPE NCC:) Most of the policies I've seen recognise this. So probably the most important measure of whether or not they are deemed critical is the fact that the community has decided that this is the case. John L. Crain On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:

On Jun 22, 2007, at 11:17 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

...

RIRs can be considered, and in fact they are, critical infrastructures,

Why?

Rgds, -drc

_______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list global-v6@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6

Alain Patrick AINA wrote:

On Friday 22 June 2007 14:18:25 Jeroen Massar wrote:

...

Alain Patrick AINA wrote:

...

This does not meet the requirements above. So you won't get it. It fully does, how else did AFRINIC assign a /32 to themselves?

This would have been your question instead of concluding so negatively on a global note.

Excuses, I will try to add a short bullet pointed list of items next time with a nice animated powerpoint presentation and an executive summary to make my question come across to you. I've sent it to all the RIR lists as it affects global policy decisions: that a single RIR is acting in their own good without even having asked their own membership about this situation. Their statement of "we are a RIR we know what we are doing" is not good enough, especially as there is no active policy actually allowing them to request such a allocation even under their own policies. Any policy that simply allows any party to get a /32 without justification is the same as when IPv4 started out, where everybody simply got a /8. Indeed at that timepoint there was enough space, but what is the main complaint from various people nowadays: that they should have gotten less as they didn't need it in the first place. We can indeed give IPv6 prefixes for free, give every household a /32, and we'll probably not run out yet; and if we do we have another 7 tries when 2000::/3 runs full. But is that really what people want? To simply squat on the address space as much as possible, so that you at least have it? Not a good thing, especially not a good thing when a RIR does it themselves. Greets, Jeroen

I've sent it to all the RIR lists as it affects global policy decisions: that a single RIR is acting in their own good without even having asked their own membership about this situation.

In general, when there are no explicit rules for appealing decisions of some group, the accepted appeal process is to begin by appealing directly to the group which made the disputed decision. The next step is to appeal to whichever body oversees that group. And so on. In this case, has an appeal been made to the AfriNIC hostmasters who made the allocation? Has an appeal already been made to the AfriNIC board of directors? Has an appeal been made to the AfriNIC membership? Has an appeal been made to the NRO directly? If not, then I don't see that this issue is relevant to ARIN or RIPE. Until the groups listed above have been given the opportunity to deal with the issue, ARIN and RIPE have no role in this. In addition, the appeal must be done sequentially, i.e. the person appealing the issue must allow a reasonable time for the issue to be considered before escalating the appeal to the next level. My sense is that none of this was done, and the appeal is being broadcast everywhere at once in an attempt to sling mud. This is not acceptable. And yes, Africa is a special case. It is a very large area in which the telecommunications structure is very complex, unlike Europe where the complainant lives. Wars and political disputes as well as hostile environments mean that all levels of the network from physical upwards, will have so-called "waste" which does not exist in Europe. That includes IP addressing. In this case AfriNIC is not conveniently located in one large well-connected city as in Europe or North America. Instead it is in 3 widely separated locations where you simply cannot connect by running three private lines. --Michael Dillon

Nick Hilliard wrote:

Jeroen Massar wrote:

...

I agree that when an organization can justify (using HD ratios etc) the need for address space that they will fully be able to get that address space without any issues. But is AFRINIC (10-50 people) able to justify a /32 based on that?

Jeroen,

you're muddling two separate issues here.

1. There is no special justification for a LIR to be assigned a /32 in afrinic areas. As far as I'm concerned, this is fine and I'd be all in favour of this sort of allocation guideline making its way into RIPE-land.

I am also fine with that as long as there is a justification for the address space. Just being LIR is not good enough IMHO. Address space should be provided under the premise that it will actually be used one day. As such /48's are very appropriate for end-sites, upto /40 for large corporations, anything above that should be able to get a /32. But this all by justification of need. That we have enough address space today is great, but when they invent this nice "stay young forever pill to fly to Jupiter and back forever", then people in that era and everybody else also want to have IPv6 address space (unless we replace it again by then :). This thus might affect you yourself too, as such, I speak up on this.

2. Afrinic allocated themselves a /32.

Afrinic are a RIR, not a LIR, and it appears that they broke the rules by allocating themselves a /32 (i.e. LIR size) instead of a /48 (end-user size).

And also without any real justification, as of yet.

This is not good. The least we expect from the (monopolistic) RIRs is that they abide strictly by the rules set out by themselves and the community. If they have any sense in the matter, they'll hand themselves back the /32 and re-assign themselves a /48 under the generic PI assignment classification.

And nobody (I think :) would have a problem with that. Even a /45 would not be looked strangely at, as they can JUSTIFY that amount of address space. (3 offices, 5 very very large projects, reasonably believable IMHO) A /32, is not though.

TBH, the amount of address space which Afrinic allocated to themselves is of very little technical importance.

I agree, relative to a 128bits of address space, a /32 is effectively nothing.

What's relevant is that they broke their own rules, which will damage their reputation and the level of trust they have in their geographic area.

Absolutely. Thanks for getting that out of my ramblings. Greets, Jeroen

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:45:05PM -0400, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote a message of 12 lines which said:

To state the obvious: there are the same number of /32s in IPv4 space as in IPv6 space.

In mathematics, yes, not in actual networks, because of RFC 1715 :-)

Joeren, To be fair, start your rant also about those that got /13 and those that got /19 :-) Latif -----Original Message----- From: afripv6-discuss-bounces@afrinic.net [mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces@afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: 22 June 2007 18:09 To: Nick Hilliard Cc: ppml@arin.net; APNIC IPv6; RIPE Address Policy; IPv6 in Africa <afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: [afripv6-discuss] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC Nick Hilliard wrote:

Jeroen Massar wrote:

...

I agree that when an organization can justify (using HD ratios etc) the need for address space that they will fully be able to get that address space without any issues. But is AFRINIC (10-50 people) able to justify a /32 based on that?

Jeroen,

you're muddling two separate issues here.

1. There is no special justification for a LIR to be assigned a /32 in afrinic areas. As far as I'm concerned, this is fine and I'd be all in favour of this sort of allocation guideline making its way into RIPE-land.

I am also fine with that as long as there is a justification for the address space. Just being LIR is not good enough IMHO. Address space should be provided under the premise that it will actually be used one day. As such /48's are very appropriate for end-sites, upto /40 for large corporations, anything above that should be able to get a /32. But this all by justification of need. That we have enough address space today is great, but when they invent this nice "stay young forever pill to fly to Jupiter and back forever", then people in that era and everybody else also want to have IPv6 address space (unless we replace it again by then :). This thus might affect you yourself too, as such, I speak up on this.

2. Afrinic allocated themselves a /32.

Afrinic are a RIR, not a LIR, and it appears that they broke the rules by allocating themselves a /32 (i.e. LIR size) instead of a /48 (end-user size).

And also without any real justification, as of yet.

This is not good. The least we expect from the (monopolistic) RIRs is that they abide strictly by the rules set out by themselves and the community. If they have any sense in the matter, they'll hand themselves back the /32 and re-assign themselves a /48 under the generic PI assignment classification.

And nobody (I think :) would have a problem with that. Even a /45 would not be looked strangely at, as they can JUSTIFY that amount of address space. (3 offices, 5 very very large projects, reasonably believable IMHO) A /32, is not though.

TBH, the amount of address space which Afrinic allocated to themselves is of very little technical importance.

I agree, relative to a 128bits of address space, a /32 is effectively nothing.

What's relevant is that they broke their own rules, which will damage their reputation and the level of trust they have in their geographic area.

Absolutely. Thanks for getting that out of my ramblings. Greets, Jeroen

De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Organización: Unfix Responder a: <ppml-bounces@arin.net> Fecha: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:32:59 +0100 Para: ARIN Address Policy <ppml@arin.net>, RIPE Address Policy <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, AFRNIC IPv6 <afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net>, APNIC IPv6 <global-v6@lists.apnic.net> Asunto: [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC

[*full rant mode*]

My eye just fell on a very strange new allocation, apparently made under some new rules in the AFRINIC region which seem to be very wasteful and very out of sync with the rest of the world who are at least thinking a bit about address conservation instead of just blowing address space like there is no tomorrow:

http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm#5 details: 8<-------------- 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: a) be an LIR; b) not be an end site; c) show a detailed plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations in

AfriNIC region. d) show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in

AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR should also plan to announce

allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within twelve months.

5.1.2. Initial allocation size

Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive a minimum allocation of /32. ---------------------------------------------->8

Wow, so you make a new 'company' in 911 land and say "I am going to allocate a single /48" and you get a FULL /32 even when you will never ever ever use it or even are going to think about using it?

The first "organization" which is using this to waste space seems to be:

inet6num: 2001:42d0::/32 netname: AfriNIC-IPv6-1 descr: AfriNIC descr: RIR country: MU

Gee, the RIR itself. How many people are using the AFRINIC network? 10-50? Are they really *ever* going to need more than a /48? Are they ever going to have a need for 65536 of those /48's?

Really this is just a waste of address space. Yes there is "enough", but being sooo obviously wasteful just to be able to have a nice slot in the routing tables is a bit over done.

I hope that the other regions take this in mind too when (re)considering

address policies.

Giving out /48's or even a /40 to an organization that is in-effect an end-site I can understand, especially when they can justify the need for

I have to agree with Jeroen on this one... How does AfriNIC qualify for more than any other organization getting P.I Space. If we consider that AfriNIC is *NOT* an LIR (you cant be an LIR *and* an RIR?) then we have to consider the space provider independent. If so, the /32 is a violation of the P.I policy found at http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200701.htm To quote the policy point (3): * The intial provider independent assignment size to an end-site should be a /48, or a shorter prefix if the end-site can justify it. As Jeroen says, there needs to be justification. Just my 2c Andrew Alston TENET - Chief Technology Officer -----Original Message----- From: afripv6-discuss-bounces@afrinic.net [mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces@afrinic.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 4:06 PM To: ppml@arin.net; ARIN Address Policy; RIPE Address Policy; IPv6 in Africa <afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net>; APNIC IPv6 Subject: [afripv6-discuss] Re: [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC Jeroen, This is just ridiculous. All the RIRs have their own /32 for their internal usage. Regards, Jordi the the the their that

amount of address space. But giving /32's to every single endsite that simply asks for it is very very very far fetched. They will not even ever fill up a /40 of address space even if they would have two sites (read: offices) in every country in Africa, let alone 65536 sites. Such a waste.

Funnily later in the above document they point to HD ratios. What point is that when the waste is already happened?

RIR's should be giving out address space based on "need" and that need must justified, giving out /32's as "those fit in the routing slots" is a really really bad idea.

In short: if you want a nice /32 without issues: setup a small shop in Africa and presto!

Greets, Jeroen

_______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML@arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ afripv6-discuss mailing list afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss

Adiel A. Akplogan wrote:

Hello Jeroen, [..]

...

Gee, the RIR itself. How many people are using the AFRINIC network? 10-50? Are they really *ever* going to need more than a /48? Are they ever going to have a need for 65536 of those /48's?

You can not take AfriNIC own allocation case to illustrate your assertion here

Why not? Is AfriNIC special, is AfriNIC outside of the policy rules set by their own membership? What does make AfriNIC so special to not even consult the rest of the world, let alone your membership, in making these decisions? So why did that not happen in the first place?

We have allocated that bloc to our own Infrastructure (which has three locations to be connected together) so each with its own /48. Further to that we have other IPv6 Internal projects which will probably require several /48.

I can fully understand a /48 per 'location', especially when they are administratively separate and/or very remote from each other. But you will never reach more than 50 of those locations. Those are a large amount and big projects AfriNIC is (going to) run then. By going to provide these services don't you think you are going against your membership, who only recently got the hard policy of only getting a /48 and they have to fully justify it. Or does AfriNIC think that everybody will be eligible for a /32? Also, is AfriNIC really going to use a full /32 with a staff of what 10-50 people or even less than that? AfriNIC is not an ISP as far as I am aware, unless some other business ventures unrelated to you being a RIR is being tapped into. As such, hosting projects is not an option either as that would mean you get clients, and that would be the only way that you could justify having a need for multiple /48's in that area. Can you clarify?

As RIR I think we are in the position to evaluate our own need before making an allocation and if it was made be sure that is after careful evaluation.

Can you please explain again why a *RIR* (Regional Internet Registry) will be using 65536 /48's in the coming, lets take a liberal, 10 years? Can you show FULL justification for this? Just as a little example, there is a little RIR, one of the older ones, you might know them as "RIPE", they have been around for a long time and helped AfriNIC get off the ground. They are running a LOT of big projects and doing a lot of community work. Still they did not allocate a /32 to themselves, or a /48 for that matter. They are using two /48's from ISP's who donated those prefixes to them. This as their membership decided for them that a RIR is not special and also because they don't claim (_afaik_) to need that kind of address space. A /48 is sufficient for them. Another good example is another little RIR, called ARIN, they also only have a single /48 for their own network, also granted under the policy as specified by their membership. How come that AfriNIC doesn't think that a /48 or max a /40, under your own PI policy which was recently approved by your membership is not good enough. Is AfriNIC special on this planet?

...

Really this is just a waste of address space. Yes there is "enough", but being sooo obviously wasteful just to be able to have a nice slot in the routing tables is a bit over done.

I don't see the waist.

I almost am having to ponder asking you how good you are in a role of a RIR if you can't do the math of 65536 /48's being wasted on this. I agree, it is nothing compared to the full address space of 128bits, but that is also what people though about 32bit IPv4 addresses, remind yourself of all the wailing people are doing about MIT having a /8. This is the exact same situation. Except now people are pointing at you when you don't justify the space. Especially when you are doing it without an appropriate policy in place.

Please read http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200701.htm

Which is not linked directly from the website, but I did find it from the email archives. Also that policy specifies one single /48. Not a /32 which is as you should know 65536 more than that. Just in case you wonder, as I mentioned already a couple of times also in other threads, I fully support organizations getting a /48 or upto even a /40 or more. But all as long as they can actually JUSTIFY that space. Saying "we are RIR, we can do what we want, we will run big projects" is not a good justification.

...

Funnily later in the above document they point to HD ratios. What point is that when the waste is already happened?

I think you are confusing the IPv6 allocation to LIR document with PI assignment document which in fact was a proposal until few days where it was ratified by AfriNIC board (... but not yet implemented).

No I was referring to the following URL which I mentioned in my mail: http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm#5 Also, clearly if such a policy is not implemented yet, how can AfriNIC itself make use of that policy then?

...

RIR's should be giving out address space based on "need" and that need must justified, giving out /32's as "those fit in the routing slots" is a really really bad idea.

That is what we do. You can not have such affirmation based on a single case.

You didn't give any valid justification (yet), also you didn't even have a policy for this kind of allocation. Doing something once, doesn't mean you didn't break policy, especially when there is no such policy.

...

In short: if you want a nice /32 without issues: setup a small shop in Africa and presto!

You won't get it like that.

Then how did you, being AfriNIC get it? Please elaborate, I am really wondering about how this works. And I very sure that a lot of other people are also very interested in knowing about these practices. Greets, Jeroen

Hi, Is there a problem if Afrinic come back on this /32 allocation ? If yes, tell Jeroen (and all the community), they will understand ; if realy not and if there is no other reason (like numerical justify values ) let's go in this way. It's just a point of vue. Regards Jeroen Massar wrote:

Adiel A. Akplogan wrote: [..]

...

...

Wow, so you make a new 'company' in 911 land and say "I am going to allocate a single /48" and you get a FULL /32 even when you will never ever ever use it or even are going to think about using it?

I think you have missed the point a) which says "be an LIR". So you must already be an LIR (and go through the LIR setup process) to get IPv6 allocation from AfrINIC.

Is it that difficult to become an LIR then? Last time I checked it simply means having a registered company in a country and paying the bills. For the rest, nothing policy wise will stop one from becoming one.

...

...

The first "organization" which is using this to waste space seems to be:

inet6num: 2001:42d0::/32 netname: AfriNIC-IPv6-1 descr: AfriNIC descr: RIR country: MU

Gee, the RIR itself. How many people are using the AFRINIC network? 10-50? Are they really *ever* going to need more than a /48? Are they ever going to have a need for 65536 of those /48's?

You can not take AfriNIC own allocation case to illustrate your assertion here

Why not? It is clearly the first block that has been using this policy.

Some other people mentioned that you might have been using the "Critical Infrastructure" policy, but clearly you are not, otherwise you would have mentioned that, but you did not.

Also even that policy mentions that a /32 is the maximum size and not the default, meaning that one still has to justify that address space.

...

We have allocated that bloc to our own Infrastructure (which has three locations to be connected together) so each with its own /48. Further to that we have other IPv6 Internal projects which will probably require several /48.

So you allocate 65536 /48's because you have *three* offices and maybe some "big projects". I don't see why those big projects require the need for individual /48's. Reminder: a /48 is 65536 /64's and in total that contains several millions of /128's to be used for addressing.

Under that premise, is every website hosted by a virtual hoster also getting their own /48? That will be a huge waste of address space when you justify it like that. I sincerely hope that that is not the justification that AfriNIC is using, as when that is the case it is really disproportionate to the rest of the world.

...

As RIR I think we are in the position to evaluate our own need before making an allocation and if it was made be sure that is after careful evaluation.

I wonder how 'careful' this evaluation was and I am seriously doubting any further 'evaluation'. Seeing that three (small) offices and some unspecified projects

A /45 (8 /48's) would have been correctly justified by the above, but a /32 (65536 /48's) is really not.

That you want a globally routable prefix and your own chunk of space is fine, but don't waste (not waist) the address space.

...

...

Really this is just a waste of address space. Yes there is "enough", but being> sooo obviously wasteful just to be able to have a nice slot in the routing tables is a bit over done.

I don't see the waist.

You don't see a waste of 65500 /48's which can otherwise really be used by the new PI policy which your membership has voted on and setup? wow.

Why does that PI policy exist when one is going to give out /32's for small sites anyway? And yes AfriNIC is a small site. Now if you had more than 200 offices and thousands of employees or what about real customers who are people and users themselves, then a /32 might be justified, but in this case, far from.

[..]

...

...

RIR's should be giving out address space based on "need" and that need must justified, giving out /32's as "those fit in the routing slots" is a really really bad idea.

That is what we do. You can not have such affirmation based on a single case.

Thus you admit that the justification was wrong, but just because you made a mistake once (which you can still easily turn back btw as the prefix is not in use yet, or just chunk it down to a /45) it can't really be called a mistake?

...

...

In short: if you want a nice /32 without issues: setup a small shop in Africa and presto!

You won't get it like that.

Clearly you can, otherwise that /32 you have now would not be there would it not?

Greets, Jeroen

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ afripv6-discuss mailing list afripv6-discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss

Kosuke Ito wrote:

Please read carefully about the section of Critical Infrastructure.

AfriNIC is eligible to have a /32 by the policy.

How exactly is a RIR more "Critical" to the Internet than Google, YouTube, MySpace or whatever site somebody uses daily? I understand if one would state "A RIR is critical as it provides service X", but then the RIR itself is not the critical infra, it is that service. RIPE itself doesn't have a /32 nor a /48, they are using a /48 that they have from an ISP out of PA space. K.ROOT *does* fall under critical infra though, and that has, according to that policy a prefix. If one states "but they have a DNS server", then how does that make my DNS server not critical? Especially a DNS server by for instance Akamai powering hunderds of well used domains? [..APNIC policy..]

The maximum assignment made under these terms is /32 per operator.

And this is the important portion of that part: "The maximum". That doesn't mean that if you can't justify it that you per default should be getting a /32. The default should be a /48, and more if one can justify it. Greets, Jeroen